MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2736438152 · doi:10.1139/cjpp-2017-0280

Difference in the response to angiotensin II between left and right ventricular endocardial endothelial cells

2017· article· en· W2736438152 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Danielle Jacques, Nelly Abdel-Karim Abdel-Malak, Nadia Abou Abdallah, Johny Al-Khoury, Ghassan Bkaily

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenin-Angiotensin System Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsReceptorCytosolAngiotensin IIInternal medicineEndocrinologyChemistryCalciumAngiotensin receptorRenin–angiotensin systemBiologyMedicineBiochemistryEnzymeBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous studies focused on the right ventricular endocardial endothelial cells (EECRs) and showed that angiotensin II (Ang II) induced increase in cytosolic and nuclear calcium via AT 1 receptor activation. In the present study, we verified whether the response of left EECs (EECLs) to Ang II is different than that of EECRs. Our results showed that the EC 50 of the Ang II-induced increase of cytosolic and nuclear calcium in EECLs was 10× higher (around 2 × 10 −13 mol/L) than in EECRs (around 8 × 10 −12 mol/L). The densities of both AT 1 and AT 2 receptors were also higher in EECLs than those previously reported in EECRs. The effect of Ang II was mediated in both cell types via the activation of AT 1 receptors. Treatment with Ang II induced a significant increase of cytosolic and nuclear AT 1 receptors in EECRs, whereas the opposite was found in EECLs. In both cell types, there was a transient increase of cytosolic and nuclear AT 2 receptors following the Ang II treatment. In conclusion, our results showed that both AT 1 and AT 2 receptors densities are higher in both EECLs compared to what was reported in EECRs. The higher density of AT 1 receptors in EECLs compared to REECs may explain, in part, the higher sensitivity of EECLs to Ang II.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.827
Threshold uncertainty score0.380

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Physiology and PharmacologySame topicRenin-Angiotensin System StudiesFrench-language works237,207